Investigation of Atomization Models for Pressure Swirl Atomizers

Spencer, Jeffrey; Herrmann, Marcus; Kuhn, T.; Rida, Samir; James, S.

doi:10.2514/6.2012-173

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A new spray model relying upon a stochastic secondary breakup model was previously developed. 1 The key advantage of the new spray model over the traditional model is that the inputs to the new model do not need experimental data for different swirler shrouds. Although obtaining this data is not necessarily difficult, in this situation the data was obtained with a Malvern analyzer, hardware needs to be fabricated for each swirler shroud design.…”

Section: Spray Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spray Model Evaluations for a Reverse Flow Combustor

Spencer

James

Herrmann

2013

51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previously studied computational fluid dynamic (CFD) fuel spray model used to characterize a pressure swirl atomizer under non-reacting conditions is implemented into a reverse flow combustor simulation. This spray model relies upon a stochastic secondary breakup model to predict the diameter distribution downstream of the atomizer and provides a robust method of simulating the fuel spray in CFD simulations. For 3 fuel nozzle shroud geometries, combustor simulations are performed using the aforementioned spray model and also a traditional model which is based upon inputting a diameter distribution measured experimentally. Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES) turbulence models are both used and comparisons of results are made amongst the two turbulence models. Rig test data was also available to compare with the two sets of CFD simulations. N O x emissions and combustor exit temperature metrics were used to compare CFD results to rig test data. The new spray model matches the performance of the current best practice approach at minimum and in some configurations yields more accurate results. Additionally, a blind validation study was performed with the new spray model and compared with rig data from 8 combustor configurations. In the first study, trends in N O x were correctly predicted by the LES/flamelet method with the new spray model however values were significantly under predicted. In both studies, the RANS/flamelet method with the new spray model is close in value of N O x with those seen in the rig data however the model misses the trend at some configurations. Overall, temperature metrics at the exit of the combustor are seen to be better predicted with LES.

show abstract

Section: Spray Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%